No, he means hated by most people.

(neither the cowboys nor yankees have ever been known for running up the score. You have no idea what your’e talking about)

Why? What’s the difference?

Also, I’m going to assume you were tired when you snarked this, because surely you understand the difference between possibly turning over the ball on your own 10 than turning over the ball on your opponent’s 10.

To even equate the two shows you are too dumb to debate.

First of all, The Patriots are playing for the records this year. Everybody said in the offseason that the Pats were building a team to win this year, which is why they made the deals to give Brady an A-grade receiving corps and plucked Adalius Thomas from the Ravens.

At their current rate of offensive production, Brady is going to obliterate Manning’s single-season TD record (and he’s already passed his own personal best) and the Patriots are going to pass the Vikings for total points scored in a season. If they also win a fourth Super Bowl in seven years, it finally cements the “dynasty” label that many have avoided granting them.

The Patriots can talk all day long about how they’re not eying these records, that Only The Win Matters, but only a fool believes them. And perhaps that’s not a good enough reason to assert this kind of dominance, perhaps it’s not “noble sportsmanship.” But somebody keeps track of those records, somebody decides that they’re important, and they don’t happen because a QB or an offense decides to show mercy.

Secondly, while it’s possible that Belichick ran up the score just to stick it in Joe Gibbs’ face, it’s also possible that he was using the cushion of the lead to experiment in a low-risk, high-return situation. Peter King pointed out an interesting Patriots maneuver in this game wherein the WR formations got spread around specifically to mask the quarterback sneak that was called…and both times it worked like a charm.

Again, not a very respectful move, but nonetheless a move designed to better the team for the only goal that matters. I’m sure the Redskins don’t appreciate it in either case, but if they didn’t want to become a case study they should have made the game competitive.

It’s amazing that Patriots fans would become bigger asses than Yankees fans (of which I am one), but it has happened. Actually smartass, the risk is that a player is going to get pissed….to the point that they’ll intentionally try to hurt somebody. How well do you think it will go over if somebody runs their helmet at Brady’s knee because Coach B decided that a 41 point lead with 9 mins left in the game wasn’t enough?

Wholly irrelevant to why the Pats ‘went for it’

Not in the context you placed it:

The 4th and 1 IS sporting — stop us and you get the ball back. Don’t and we’ll score. Pretty basic.

If that were the case, they’d go for it every time.

But if your main complaint is that they are ‘rubbing it in’ by severely outscoring their opponent why wouldn’t you be mad about a meaningless field goal?

First off, my complaint is not that they are severely outscoring their opponents. There are big scores all the time that aren’t the result of a team unnecessarily throwing up points on the board. When you have a 38 point lead and it’s 4th and 1, the prudent thing to do is kick the field goal. To go for it to get the score up to 45-0 is done merely to embarrass the other team and their coaching staff.

Isn’t the fact that they didn’t do these things proof that they played the game pretty straight up? Except for the fake spike (which they did the WEEK BEFORE in case Gibbs actually preps his team for the game, it was in the tape…), they didn’t do anything tricky, or exotic.

They didn’t have time. Between fake spikes, going for it on 4th and 2, as well as throwing deep with a monster lead, they couldn’t find the time to work in a double reverse when leading 52-7.

If the Pats were 4th and 1 in their side of the field, they would have punted.

Why? What’s the difference?

You’re right! If only there was some way for a football player to show their displeasure at players on another team! If they only were able to physically engage each other or something, maybe then those dastardly Patriots would know the wrath of the Redskins!

First of all, I’d like to see some statistics on how often football teams go for it on 4th and 1.

Wholly irrelevant to why the Pats ‘went for it’ but even Crazy Gregg Easterbrook thinks too few coaches go for it on 4th and 1. It’s almost always the better percentage play than punting.

I’ll bet money you’ll find a lot more times they punt and kick field goals than go for the first down.

Probably. And they do it for a lot of different reasons, many of them dumb. But if your main complaint is that they are ‘rubbing it in’ by severely outscoring their opponent why wouldn’t you be mad about a meaningless field goal? Or do you think the Pats should have just handed over the ball out of pity?

The Skins could get the ball back if they stop a 4th and 1. That’s the sporting proposition. They didn’t. Simple as that.

Second of all, if it’s all about scoring points and its no big deal, why not throw an on-side kick in there for fun? Or throwing hail mary passes instead of taking a knee at the end? Or some flea flickers?

Isn’t the fact that they didn’t do these things proof that they played the game pretty straight up? Except for the fake spike (which they did the WEEK BEFORE in case Gibbs actually preps his team for the game, it was in the tape…), they didn’t do anything tricky, or exotic.

Second, they didn’t go for it once…but TWICE.

Those were two chances the Skins had to get the ball back and they couldn’t do it. Seriously. I know I can’t convince you that the totally unfair fact that the Patriots were giving the Skins a fair chance to stop them on 4th and 1 (both times with the QB running straight ahead) — but say you are the opposing coach (say Joe Gibbs). Would you rather have the Pats tack on field goals or have a chance to drive them back and take the ball over on downs? Or should we just make special rules for teams that can’t stop teams from running the ball down the middle?

If the Pats were 4th and 1 in their side of the field, they would have punted.

Spider, blowouts like that in baseball are an anomaly. It just doesn’t happen enough in order for their to be a patter. Also, guys can police themselves in baseball. If one team feels they’re getting shown up, they’ll plunk somebody.

In basketball, you will see from time to time coaches and players getting pissed when the game is a blowout and the other coach still has his starting squad on the court.

How so? You would have rather the Pats kick a field goal? Isn’t them scoring more points the whole reason you guys are whining to begin with? The 4th and 1 IS sporting — stop us and you get the ball back. Don’t and we’ll score. Pretty basic.

First of all, I’d like to see some statistics on how often football teams go for it on 4th and 1. I’ll bet money you’ll find a lot more times they punt and kick field goals than go for the first down. Second of all, if it’s all about scoring points and its no big deal, why not throw an on-side kick in there for fun? Or throwing hail mary passes instead of taking a knee at the end? Or some flea flickers?

Second, they didn’t go for it once…but TWICE.

How so? You would have rather the Pats kick a field goal? Isn’t them scoring more points the whole reason you guys are whining to begin with? The 4th and 1 IS sporting — stop us and you get the ball back. Don’t and we’ll score. Pretty basic.

And spare me the boohoo with your cute little racist (oh, I mean “heritage”) team. Some scores from the Joe Gibbs eras Mark I and II:
>
> *1983: Was 51 LA Rams 7 (play-off game)
> Was 45 STL Cardinals 7 *
> * 1985: Was 44 Atl 10
> 1986: Was 41 Phi 14
> Was 41 Dal 14
> 1987: Was 42 Den 10 (Super Bowl)
> 1991: Was 45 Det 0
> Was 45 Det 10 (NFCCG)
> Was 56 Atl 17
> Was 41 Pit 14
> 1992: Was 41 Pho 3
> 2005: Was 52 SF 17

Why can’t that nascar-luvin’ christian guy play nice?

What was Belichick supposed to do for 12 minutes? Stop playing the game? Did Ron Washington tell his players to stop swinging at fat pitches across the plate because clearly the O’s had “had enough”?

The onus is not on the offense to stop itself, it is on the defense to stop them. As I mentioned before, the Redskins couldn’t even stop Brady’s backup.

It’s like Belichick needs to compensate for having been busted cheating by running up scores as if to say, “Look! We don’t need to cheat!”

Fixed!

He has to have his team, particularly on offense, running like a machine. They have to have it in their heads that they should score every time they have the ball.

Please recall that the last time the Patriots played the Colts at Indianapolis, they blew a 21-6 halftime lead.

Belichik knows what he is doing. He is trying to win the Super Bowl.

They probably could’ve beaten the ’skins today without the intentional sabotage. Another reason why Belichick is the Richard M. Nixon of the NFL.